X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C7A867.780FC53A@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:21:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7A867.780FC53A"
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: BOM file name in EverON package
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 11:17:05 -0700
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E02F3D1FF@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: BOM file name in EverON package
Thread-Index: AceoE76sm8zxRC2jT6u1X2A+doyh9wAUySWt
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E04020866@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
From: "Ken Renshaw" <ken.renshaw@onstor.com>
To: "Shin Irie" <shin.irie@onstor.com>,
	"dl-cstech" <dl-cstech@onstor.com>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C7A867.780FC53A
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Irie.

There shouldn't be any problems WRT upgrading to future releases. The =
reason for the change in 2.2.1.0 was that prior to that patch Build =
would release packages with the R2.2.1.0-date format and support would =
rename them to EverON-2.2.1.0 and post them for download. Once we added =
the BOM compare feature we couldn't do this any more as the BOM file and =
tarfile names must match. So at the request of Eric B. I have been =
building patches with the EverON-xxxx format ever since. The customer =
should be fine though.

Thanks,

-Ken


-----Original Message-----
From: Shin Irie
Sent: Wed 6/6/2007 1:21 AM
To: dl-cstech
Subject: BOM file name in EverON package
=20
Hi,

BOM file in EverON package is EverON-a.b.c.dBC.bom. However, it seems =
that we released R2.2.1.0 with R2.2.1.0BC-022807.bom first, and then =
replaced it with the right one.

One customer did upgrade his systems with the old package. Is there any =
problem by having R2.2.1.0BC-022807.bom in the compact flash card? For =
example in the future upgrade?

--
Irie
=20


------_=_NextPart_001_01C7A867.780FC53A
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>RE: BOM file name in EverON package</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hi Irie.<BR>
<BR>
There shouldn't be any problems WRT upgrading to future releases. The =
reason for the change in 2.2.1.0 was that prior to that patch Build =
would release packages with the R2.2.1.0-date format and support would =
rename them to EverON-2.2.1.0 and post them for download. Once we added =
the BOM compare feature we couldn't do this any more as the BOM file and =
tarfile names must match. So at the request of Eric B. I have been =
building patches with the EverON-xxxx format ever since. The customer =
should be fine though.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks,<BR>
<BR>
-Ken<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Shin Irie<BR>
Sent: Wed 6/6/2007 1:21 AM<BR>
To: dl-cstech<BR>
Subject: BOM file name in EverON package<BR>
<BR>
Hi,<BR>
<BR>
BOM file in EverON package is EverON-a.b.c.dBC.bom. However, it seems =
that we released R2.2.1.0 with R2.2.1.0BC-022807.bom first, and then =
replaced it with the right one.<BR>
<BR>
One customer did upgrade his systems with the old package. Is there any =
problem by having R2.2.1.0BC-022807.bom in the compact flash card? For =
example in the future upgrade?<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Irie<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C7A867.780FC53A--
